Renzulli Law Firm

Based upon Renzulli Law Firm’s arguments, the Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued an order dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal from the Superior Court’s decision granting a firearms retailer’s motion to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) in a widely publicized case, Gilland v. Sportsmen’s Outpost, Inc. Plaintiffs, who were represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sought to hold the firearms retailer liable for wrongful death and negligence after Scott Magnano stole a firearm from it and, more than a month later, shot and killed his estranged wife Jennifer Magnano, and then committed suicide.

Renzulli Law Firm has obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice of an alleged false patent marking lawsuit against an industry-leading product manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In 2010, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the manufacturer had violated the federal false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292(a), by marking products with expired patent numbers.

New York has some of the most stringent and complex laws in the country designed to protect workers in the construction trades. Pursuant to the New York statutory scheme, landowners and contractors bear responsibility to ensure construction workers are provided with all appropriate safety devices required to perform their jobs safely, and that the construction area remains free of any dangers posed to the worker. The scope of this responsibility to ensure workers’ safety, however, generally depends upon which provision of the New York Labor Law is applicable in a given case.

Effective December 10, 2010, expert discovery under the rules of civil procedure changed significantly with respect to both retained testifying experts and non-retained testifying experts, such as treating physicians.

Non-Retained Testifying Experts

The first significant change to Rule 26 is that a party wishing to present testimony from non-retained experts at trial (such as treating physicians and employees with expertise who do not regularly provide expert testimony), must now file a disclosure regarding any such expert’s opinions and the bases for them.  Recall that under former Rule 26, no disclosure was necessary for such experts.  Specifically, the new Rule 26 requires a disclosure which states: “(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705; and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.”  See FRCP 26(a)(2)(C). 

Attachments:

The New Rule 26

43 Kb